Skip to main content
· 12/13/1909

Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. v. United States

Citations

  • 215 U.S. 266
  • 30 S. Ct. 97
  • 54 L. Ed. 190
  • 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1756

Syllabus

<p>Where a case is opened that further evidence may be produced, it is also open for the amendment of the original pleadings or for additional pleadings appropriate to the issues;, and permission by the lower court to file such supplemental complaint is not inconsistent with the mandate of this court remanding the case with directions to grant leave to both sides to adduce further evidence.</p> <p>Under the provisions of the Code of New Mexico allowing supplemental pleadings alleging facts material to the issue, the fact that the defendant corporation has, since the suit was brought by the Government to enjoin it from so building a dam as to interfere with the navigability of an international river, failed to exercise its franchise in accordance .with the statute,'is germane to the object of the suit and may be pleaded by supplemental complaint.</p> <p>The allowance of amendments of supplemental pleadings must at every stage of the cause rest with the discretion of the court, which discretion must depend largely on the special circumstances of each case, nor will the exercise of this discretion be reviewed in the absence of gross abuse.</p> <p>Attorneys of record are supposed to be present during the terms of .the court in which their causes are pending,- and are chargeable with notice of proceedings transpiring in open court.</p> <p>In this case the action of the trial court in taking a supplemental complaint for confessed in the absence of any pleading after the time therefor had elapsed,' sustained, there appearing to be no excuse for thé default and no irregularity appearing in the order permitting the filing of the complaint or in the service thereof. The fact that for a time work was enjoined at the instance of the' Government does not excuse the delay in completing work under statutory permission within the time prescribed where the delay exceeds the limit after deducting all-the time for which the injunction was in force;.</p>

Judges: Harlan, McKenna

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.